Earlier text: The Sermon.QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.
By Ellen G. White
BRO. SMITH: I have received from the hands of the Wisconsin and Illinois Conference Committee the following questions. I append a reply to each of them, that both question and reply may appear in the same number of the Review for the benefit of the brethren and sisters of the Wis. and Ill. Conference, and all others who wish to learn the facts in the case. Did you receive your views upon health reform before visiting the Health Institute at Dansville, N. Y., or before you had read works on the subject? It was at the house of Bro. A. Hilliard, at Otsego, Mich., June 6, 1863, that the great subject of Health Reform was opened before me in vision. I did not visit Dansville till August, 1864, fourteen months after I had the view. I did not read any works upon health until I had written Spiritual Gifts, Vols. iii and iv, Appeal to Mothers, and had sketched out most of my six articles in the six numbers of “How to Live.” I did not know that such a paper existed as the Laws of Life, published at Dansville, N. Y. I had not heard of the several works upon health, written by Dr. J. C. Jackson, and other publications at Dansville, at the time I had the view named above. I did not know that such works existed until September, 1863, when in Boston, Mass., my husband saw them advertised in a periodical called the Voice of the Prophets, published by Eld. J. V. Himes. My husband ordered the works from Dansville and received them at Topsham, Maine. His business gave him no time to peruse them, and as I determined not to read them until I had written out my views, the books remained in their wrappers. As I introduced the subject of health to friends where I labored in Michigan, New England, and in the State of New York, and spoke against drugs and flesh meats, and in favor of water, pure air, and a proper diet, the reply was often made, “You speak very nearly the opinions taught in the Laws of Life, and other publications, by Drs. Trall, Jackson, and others. Have you read that paper and those works?” My reply was that I had not, neither should I read them till I had fully written out my views, lest it should be said that I had received my light upon the subject of health from physicians, and not from the Lord. And after I had written my six articles for How to Live, I then searched the various works on Hygiene and was surprised to find them so nearly in harmony with what the Lord had revealed to me. And to show this harmony, and to set before my brethren and sisters the subject as brought out by able writers, I determined to publish “How to Live,” in which I largely extracted from the works referred to. Does not the practice of the sisters in wearing their dresses nine inches from the floor contradict Testimony No. 11, which says they should reach somewhat below the top of a lady’s gaiter boot? Does it not also contradict Testimony No. 10, which says they should clear the filth of the street an inch or two without being raised by the hand? The proper distance from the bottom of the dress to the floor was not given to me in inches. Neither was I shown ladies’ gaiter boots; but three companies of females passed before me, with their dresses as follows with respect to length: The first were of fashionable length, burdening the limbs, impeding the step, and sweeping the street and gathering its filth; the evil results of which I have fully stated. This class, who were slaves to fashion, appeared feeble and languid. The dress of the second class which passed before me was in many respects as it should be. The limbs were well clad. They were free from the burdens which the tyrant, Fashion, had imposed upon the first class; but had gone to that extreme in the short dress as to disgust and prejudice good people, and destroy in a great measure their own influence. This is the style and influence of the “American Costume,” taught and worn by many at “Our Home,” Dansville, N. Y. It does not reach to the knee. I need not say that this style of dress was shown me to be too short. A third class passed before me with cheerful countenances, and free, elastic step. Their dress was the length I have described as proper, modest and healthful. It cleared the filth of the street and side-walk a few inches under all circumstances, such as ascending and descending steps, &c. As I have before stated, the length was not given me in inches, and I was not shown a lady’s boot. And here I would state that although I am as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in writing my views as I am in receiving them, yet the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, unless they be those spoken to me by an angel, which I always enclose in marks of quotation. As I wrote upon the subject of dress the view of those three companies revived in my mind as plain as when I was viewing them in vision; but I was left to describe the length of the proper dress in my own language the best I could, which I have done by stating that the bottom of the dress should reach near the top of a lady’s boot, which would be necessary in order to clear the filth of the streets under the circumstances before named. I put on the dress, in length as near as I had seen and described as I could judge. My sisters in Northern Michigan also adopted it. And when the subject of inches came up in order to secure uniformity as to length everywhere, a rule was brought and it was found that the length of our dresses ranged from eight to ten inches from the floor. Some of these were a little longer than the sample shown me, while others were a little shorter. Numerous letters came to me from all parts of the field, inquiring the length of the dress shown me. Having seen the rule applied to the distance from the floor of several dresses, and having become fully satisfied that nine inches comes the nearest to the samples shown me, I have given this number of inches in No. 12, as the proper length in regard to which uniformity is very desirable. If it be said that a lady’s boot is not nine inches high, I would say I wear a boot eight inches high, and when I have walked before my sisters with it uncovered as those properly dressed passed before me in vision, they could not see the top of my boot. In Testimony, No. 11, you say: “My apology for calling your attention again to the subject of dress is that not one in twenty of my sisters, who profess to believe the testimony, have taken the first step in the dress reform.” How long before writing No. 11, had you worn the reformed dress? I put on the reformed dress September, 1865, when I visited Dansville with my sick husband. It was the same length I now wear, and I was distinctly given to understand that it was not the “American Costume.” I have worn this style of dress ever since261 that time, excepting at meetings, in the crowded streets of villages and cities, and when visiting distant relatives. Since I commenced to write No. 11, in January, 1867, I have worn no other than the reformed dress. My reasons for pursuing the course I have are as follows:— 1. I put on the reformed dress for general use more than two years since, because I had seen that it was a convenient, modest, and healthful style, and would, in the providence of God, as Health Reform should lead the way, finally be adopted by our people. 2. It was my duty to avoid raising prejudice against the dress, which would cut off my testimony if I wore it, until I had fully set the matter before the people, and the time came, in the order of events, for it to be generally adopted. 3. The dress reform was among the minor things that were to make up the great reform in health, and never should have been urged as a testing truth necessary to salvation. It was the design of God that at the right time, on proper occasions, the proper persons should set forth its benefits as a blessing, and recommend uniformity, and union of action. 4. The issue came too soon. The defence of the dress was forced upon us by those who opposed it, who at the same time professed full confidence in my testimonies. When the Health Institute was opened at Battle Creek, and the dress adopted by female patients, as directed by the physicians, then came the opposition, chiefly from brethren at Battle Creek. The physicians having full confidence in my testimonies, stated to them that the style of dress they recommended for their patients was the same as I had seen would be adopted by our people. Then came the general inquiry, and a strange spirit of blind and bitter opposition arose with some who professed to be among the firmest friends of the testimonies. The general inquiry spread everywhere, and in the autumn and winter of 1866, letters came in from all directions inquiring in regard to what I had seen, asking for immediate answers. I therefore determined to hasten out No. 11. We visited the church at Wright, Mich., Dec. 21, 1866, and labored with them six weeks. I there wrote most of Testimony, No. 11. The first two Sabbaths and first-days I spoke to the people in my long dress. But when I had fully set the matter before the people without raising their prejudice, I put on my present style of dress, which was immediately adopted by the numerous sisters of that church. I have worn it since that time. At Greenville, Orleans, Orange, Windsor, Bushnell, Greenbush, Monterey, and Ithaca, I have, in speaking upon the great subject of health, mentioned the dress reform as one of the items of least importance which make up the great whole. With the dear sisters of these churches I have had no unhappy conflicts. I have presented the claims of this new and unpopular style of dress to them, while I set them an example. They have received my testimony, and have followed my example from principle, and not as the result of being urged. Those who, by their blind opposition, brought the issue too soon, caused confusion and prejudice, especially in the church at Battle Creek, must settle the matter with God and their brethren. I am clear in this matter, having done the best I could in standing in defence of the truth, and in laboring to save our people from confusion upon the subject. Is there not danger of brethren and sisters taking extreme views of the Health Reform? This may be expected in all stirring reforms. The devotion to the subject manifested by our preachers and by the Review, and the unqualified, stirring appeals for large sums of money without giving proper cautions in the matter, has given the impression to many that Health Reform is that which demands their attention above all others, and some who need to be taught the first principles of righteousness, have urged it out of season, and have thus disgusted the people. It is God’s plan that persons who are suited to the work should prudently and earnestly set forth the Health Reform, then leave the people to settle the matter with God and their own souls. It is the duty of those every way qualified to teach it to make people believe and obey, and all others should be silent and be taught. Is there not danger of urging the Health Reform upon others before they are prepared to receive? There is. This is especially true in the matter of dress. When we first received the third message the Lord had many things to say to us, but we could not hear them all then. He has led us with a gentle hand and tender care, step by step, till we have reached the reform in health. When young disciples have learned what we had learned up to the time of the introduction of this reform, let this also be prudently set before them. Your last vision was given Dec., 1865. Many inquire, “If the visions are so important for the church, why so long before the subject of Health Reform was brought out?” I had, before I had the last vision Dec., 1865, spoken quite fully upon the subject of health. My last vision related mostly to individual cases. I have written thousands of pages since that time of personal testimonies which most of our people know nothing about. I have written hundreds of letters relative to the establishing of a Health Institute, of which still more are ignorant. I have been pressed with cares, labors and grief by reason of sickness in my own family. Yet I have done much in further bringing out the subject under most unfavorable circumstances. It may be that I have done this, especially on the dress question, as fast as the Lord would have me. It has certainly been brought out faster than some who raise this question have been ready to receive it. Shall we understand by what you have said in your testimonies in favor of recreation, that you approbate such vain amusements as chess, checkers, charades, back-gammon, hunt-the-whistle, and blind-man’s-buff? It is generally reported in this Conference that you have taken an interest in the amusements which have been practiced at the Health Institute at Battle Creek, that you play checkers, and carry a checker-board with you as you visit the brethren from place to place. ISAAC SANBORN,
H. C. BLANCHARD,
R. F. ANDREWS, } Conf. Com. Since I professed to be a follower of Christ at the age of twelve years, I have never engaged in any such simple plays and amusements as named above. Neither have I at any time given my influence in their favor. I do not know how to play at checkers, chess, back-gammon, fox-and-geese, or any thing of the kind. I have spoken in favor of recreation, but have ever stood in great doubt of the amusements introduced at the Institute at Battle Creek, and have stated my objections to the physicians and directors, and others, in conversation with them, and by numerous letters. On pages 24-26 of Testimony No. 12, I have spoken of “Recreation for Christians,” as follows:— “I was shown that Sabbath-keepers as a people labor too hard without allowing themselves change, or periods of rest. Recreation is needful to those who are engaged in physical labor, yet still more essential for those whose labors are principally mental.
“I was shown that it is not essential to our salvation, nor for the glory of God, for us to keep the mind laboring, even upon religious themes, constantly and excessively. There are amusements which we cannot approve, because Heaven condemns them,—such as dancing, card-playing, chess, checkers, &c. These amusements open the door for great evil. Their tendencies are not beneficial, but their influence upon the mind is to excite and produce in some minds a passion for those plays which lead to gambling, and dissolute lives. All such plays should be condemned by Christians. Something should be substituted in the place of these amusements. Something can be invented, perfectly harmless.” “I saw that our holidays should not be spent in patterning after the world, yet they should not be passed by unnoticed, for this will bring dissatisfaction to our children. On these days when there is danger of our children partaking of evil influences, and becoming corrupted by the pleasures and excitement of the world, let the parents study to get up something to take the place of more dangerous amusements. Give your children to understand you have their happiness and best good in view. “Let families unite together and leave their occupations which have taxed them physically and mentally, and make an excursion out of the cities and villages a few miles into the country, by the side of a fine lake, or in a nice grove, where the scenery of nature is beautiful. They should provide themselves with plain, hygienic food, and spread their table under the shade of a tree, or under the canopy of heaven provided with the very best of fruits and grains. The ride, the exercise, and the scenery, will quicken the appetite, and they can come around a repast which kings might envy. “Parents and children on such occasions should feel as free as air from care, labors or perplexities. Parents should become children with their children, making it as happy as possible for them. Let the whole day be given to recreation. Exercise of the muscles in the open air, for those whose employment has been within doors and sedentary, will be beneficial to health. All who can, should feel it a duty resting upon them to pursue this course. Nothing will be lost, but much gained. They can return to their occupations with new life, and new courage to engage in their labor with new zeal. And such have gained much, for they are better prepared to resist disease.” I will here give extracts from Testimony No. 12, pages 77-79, in regard to vain amusements:— “Those connected with the Health Institute now located at Battle Creek, should feel that they are engaged in an important and solemn work; and in no way should they pattern after the physicians at the institution at Dansville in matters of religion and amusements. Yet, I saw that there would be danger of imitating them in many things, and losing sight of the exalted character of this great work. And should those connected with this enterprise descend from the exalted principles of present truth, to imitate in theory and practice those at the head of institutions where the sick are treated only for the recovery of health, and should they cease to look at their work from a high religious stand-point, the especial blessing of God would not rest upon our institution any more than upon those where corrupt theories are taught and practiced.” “I was shown that the position of Dr. Jackson in regard to amusements was wrong, and that the views of physical exercise were not all correct. The very amusements he recommends hinder the recovery of health in many cases, where one is helped by them. And physical labor for the sick, is to a great degree condemned by Dr. Jackson, which proves in many cases the greatest injury, while such mental exercise as playing at cards, chess, and checkers, excites and wearies the brain, and hinders recovery. Light and pleasant physical labor will occupy the time, improve the circulation, relieve and restore the brain, and prove a decided benefit to the health. But take from the invalid all such employment, and he becomes restless, and, with a diseased imagination, views his case as much worse than it really is, which tends to imbecility. “For years past I have been shown from time to time that the sick should be taught that it was wrong to suspend all physical labor in order to regain health. In thus doing the will becomes dormant, the blood circulates through the system sluggishly, and grows more impure. Where there is danger of the patient’s imagining his case worse than it really is, indolence will be sure to produce the most unhappy results. Well-regulated labor gives the invalid the idea that he is not totally useless in the world, that he is, at least, of some benefit. This will afford him satisfaction, give him courage, and impart to him vigor, which vain, mental amusements can never do.” I have answered these questions as fully and as well as circumstances would admit. If other brethren have similar questions to propose I shall be glad to answer them also, as I can find time. Pilot Grove, Iowa., Sept. 26, 1867. Tell me the meaning of Scriptures. One gem from that ocean is worth all the pebbles of earthly streams.—M. Cheyne. Punctuation of the Scriptures.
By W. C. G.
READERS of the Bible should know that the punctuation of our version, and indeed of any other version of the Scriptures, is not the work of inspiration, but solely the work of man. The first translations of the Bible were without the marks of punctuation which are now used; indeed the comma in its present form was not invented until the year 1790. It would not be surprising then if the marks of punctuation were sometimes misplaced, and in several instances this is the case as in 2 Pet. iii, 10, where the grammatical construction evidently requires a comma or semicolon after the word also, detaching the words “the earth also” from the sentence following and connecting them with the preceding sentence. Also in Luke xxiii, 43, where the whole tenor of the Scriptures demand that the comma before the word “to-day” should be placed after it. The importance of punctuation is happily illustrated in the following ingenious arrangement of sentences, which appears in a secular newspaper:
He is an old experienced man
In vice and wickedness
He is never found
Opposing the works of iniquity
He takes delight
In the downfall of the neighborhood
He never rejoices
In the prosperity of any of his fellow creatures
He is always ready to assist
In destroying the peace of society
He takes no pleasure
In serving the Lord
He is uncommonly diligent
In sowing discord among his friends and acquaintances
He takes no pride
In laboring to promote the cause of Christianity
He has not been negligent
In endeavoring to stigmatize all public teachers
He makes no exertion
To subdue his evil passions
He strives hard
To build up Satan’s kingdom
He lends no aid
To the support of the gospel among the heathen
He contributes largely
To the evil adversary
He pays no attention
To good advice
He gives great heed
To the devil
He will never go
To Heaven
He must go
Where he will receive the just recompense of reward. Read the above in the following manner: Pause at the end of the first line; then at the end of every other line, reading two lines in connection. After reading it through in this manner, commence again and pause at the end of the second line; then at the end of every other line. W. C. G. [The following spirited description of the character of one to whom the religious world owes so much, will be of great interest to those who in these days of error and false doctrine desire to emulate the character and virtues of the great Reformer, by boldly advocating reforms in doctrine and in Christian holiness.] For three hundred years after the death of the Saviour, the glorious Gospel, which he gave to man, was promulgated by his faithful disciples in all simplicity. Notwithstanding the persecutions of Nero, and other Roman Emperors, the number of its adherents steadily increased. When Constantine became a professor of Christianity, the bitter persecutions ended, but instead of the pure, primitive love of the lowly Jesus, the cold formality and the heartless pomp of a state religion were introduced. About the fifth century, the Bishop of Rome assumed the supremacy which he has since arrogantly maintained. History records the gradual decay of the Roman Empire, and we are brought to the midnight of the dark ages. During its gloomy years the doctrines of Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Auricular Confession, Priestly Absolution, Papal Indulgences, Adoration of Saints, Worship of the Host, Monastic Seclusion, and Clerical Celibacy were successively admitted. At the beginning of the sixteenth century superstition, and its companion, ignorance, held almost undisputed sway. This is admitted by the Italian Jesuit Bellarmine, who says, there was not at that time, “any knowledge of sacred literature, or reverence for divine things, or scarcely any religion remaining.” The Mystics had beheld the corruptions of the church with sorrow; the Waldenses had contended for a purer faith; Wicliffe had opened the word of God in England; John Huss had nobly sealed with his own blood the truth he had preached; the vacillating Erasmus had written against the most prominent abuses; some few others had spoken more or less directly; yet, the Papacy could look down with scorn upon its opposers, and those that could not be brought over were speedily silenced by the headsman’s axe or the burning faggot. At this period, when the power of the Pope appeared to be most strong, when the so-called heretics had been, it was thought, exterminated, and the great princes of the world were ready to acknowledge the claims of the Romish hierarchy; when the friends of the Papacy were perhaps congratulating themselves upon the possession of almost unlimited power; then, then it pleased God to raise up a man who should shake the Papal edifice from its foundation, and inflict on it an incurable wound. This instrument in the Lord’s hand was not one of the great ones of earth, as the world reckons greatness. No, God chooses “the foolish, the simple ones, to confound the wise.” The reformer Zwingley was the son of a herdsman; Melancthon, the son of an armourer, and the subject of our sketch, MARTIN LUTHER, was the son of a poor miner. Luther declared, “I am a peasant’s son, and my father, grandfather, and great grandfather were all common peasants.” Robust manhood, such as Luther’s, springs from plebeian loins. In analyzing the mental character of Luther, the most superficial observer will not fail to notice his steadfastness,—his unalterable constancy and determination. This predominating characteristic of firmness made him resolute and inflexible, and led him to persevere in his work, as fast as the light was thrown upon his path, with a tenacity and a fixedness which displayed his indomitable courage and sturdy manliness. His enemies charge him with wavering and changing, but the variations they observe are not changes of character or of purpose; they are merely the modifications of his course rendered necessary by the fuller revelations of truth received, through a diligent study of the Scriptures, and the developments of the evils of the Romish Church. Luther was always true to his convictions of right, and if he ever advocated an error, it was in the belief that it was a truth. He held the doctrine of consubstantiation, which is scarcely more acceptable to Protestants now than transubstantiation, and, while satisfied of his error in this, yet we cannot but admire his faithfulness in courageously teaching what he believed to be true. Even Sir Wm. Hamilton, the Romanist, admits that Luther “never paltered with the truth.” Many besides Luther had strong convictions of the fallacies of the Papal system, and the gross evils which it supported, but they were satisfied with uttering a feeble cry of warning, saying a word in opposition, or lamenting the wrongs in silence. Luther stands out from such in bold relief, because he had moral courage to act, and using at first, faithfully, his one talent, his Master entrusted him with many more. Whatever Luther believed to be true, he taught, not secretly, but publicly; and the truths he proclaimed were not withheld until he could dress them up to suit the popular taste, but enunciated with distinctness, force, and power, if not always with grace, purity and refinement. But we observe in Luther unusual combinations of character. We have said that firmness was the leading trait in the character of the Saxon Reformer, but this firmness was exercised in combination with those faculties of mind, which, with intense power and force, gave him kindliness, sympathy, and desire for the happiness of all men. Firmness, with pride and selfishness, gives the insane lust for rule, for mastery, dominion, and command; but firmness with true benevolence, with love for God and love for man, strengthened and vivified by a fiery soul, such as Luther’s, gave tremendous force and vitality to all his acts. Had he not worked out his design, the millions who now repeat the name of Luther with love and respect would not have even known that such a man had ever existed. Men of equal intellectual talent are numerous now, men of equal executive capacity, yet they are comparatively insignificant, because they lack the happy fusion of purpose and action—they lay out reforms on paper, as our speculators do town lots in the wilderness; or they attempt to construct a massive edifice without any definite design. The source of the irresistible power of Luther was his acting out the truth. It was truth lived out. As the Lord poured into his mind larger and larger views of truth, instead of storing these in his memory for future use, he considered this would be equal to hiding the talent in the napkin, so he acted out his convictions for each day. Now, as unused power, be it that of a muscle or an intellectual endowment, is gradually lost, and used mental force creates new power, or rather prepares us for the reception of new power, and, as Luther was active, keeping every talent in use, allowing no rust to accumulate, we have in Luther a vastness of energy, and a sublimity of faith unapproached by ordinary men. Luther’s faith made him strong, Luther’s living according to that faith, made him unconquerable. John Huss attacked the scandalous corruptions of the Papacy. Luther followed, denouncing not only the errors of life, but the doctrines of the Church. The one referred principally to its morals; the other leveled his blows at the foundation upon which the false edifice rested. Luther’s actions were not confined to mere denunciations; had they been, then he would not be worthy of the rank we give him, that of a true Reformer. The pseudo-reformer deals in condemnatory phrases; he censures existing institutions, but offers none better; he destroys the confidence of men in time-honored customs, but builds nothing valuable upon the ruin he makes. Luther aimed to overthrow the Papacy, yet he was no ruthless destructionist. He opposed the change of the ceremonies of the Church until the people desired the alterations. Reforms were not to be introduced until the people were prepared for them. He did this so consistently that some have said that he rather followed than led the reformatory movement. Luther was satisfied of the evils of image worship yet opposed the Iconoclasts, who destroyed them. He knew that breaking the Idol did not cure Idolatry, and that the true course was to preach the right faith, the reception of which would remove the idol from the heart. Luther—a man of reflection, deep, earnest, intense thought; a man of words, the thoughts found appropriate utterance in a language of thrilling power; a man of action,—not concealing his light, but showing it prominently and conspicuously. In all this he approached the true ideal of the True man. No visionary doting over mere speculations. No wordy-radical, devoted merely to blustering talk. No revolutionist, tearing and trampling down the institutions of his country, without respect to the past, regard for the present, or penetration respecting the future. But a keen-witted, energetic reformer, insisting upon his own rights, but regarding the dues of others, aggressive, yet reasonable; excelling in force and surpassing in mental power, but not lacking in the more attractive elements of a noble nature, gentleness, sympathy, benevolence, love; such a blending of heart-wealth and intellectual greatness as gives us the truly heroic in life. Other Reformers were willing to employ physical force to further their designs; Luther, true to his faith, in the guidance of the Heavenly Master, the Prince of Peace, deprecated all resort to the weapons of carnal warfare. Thus fearless and truthful, he pursued the acquisition of knowledge, with ardent zeal, and propagated his views in spite of all opposition. We hold him up to view as a Christian Hero; not faultless, but with noble virtues so overshadowing all failings that in a grateful remembrance of his too-little-valued services we shall not dwell upon his errors. The Papists take his works, and selecting out here and there an objectionable passage, they bring it forth prominently, and bid you gaze upon it. Considering that Luther published one hundred and thirty-three different treatises in one year, his errors do not appear to have been more numerous than weeds are in a well kept garden. Would you admire the taste of a man who should visit your grounds, and passing by a thousand flowers of glorious hue and refreshing fragrance, should gather a bunch of rank weeds, and bring them for your acceptance, saying, “What think you of the product of your garden?” Luther’s deficiencies and imperfections are as weeds growing in strong soil—we have no fancy for making a collection of them. Carping critics may gloat over his errors, but had they lived in Luther’s day, think you they would have seen so much of truth; and if they should have perceived the right path, would they have had courage to pursue it, facing the dangers that he faced? We say that Luther was a true Reformer. Consider for a moment what reform is. Re-form. Formed anew: changed from evil to good: cast in a new mould!! Now men must melt their metal before they can cast it; so must the true Reformer commence his labor by informing the minds of the people, and softening their hearts by enlarged views of truth and exhibitions of love. We need not quarrel about the mould, the form will represent the mind and heart of the people. If the form is not right, war not against the exterior but aim at the root—the source of the wrong. ’Tis Pharisaic to care so much for the outside; renovate the heart, then you shall find good fruit in the regenerate life, and the external will not merely look fair, but be really so. The Rev. Dr. Cumming remarks on this subject, “Man’s constant prescription for the elevation of man is to alter his circumstances; God’s grand prescription for the improvement of man is to change his heart. Man’s plan is to give the patient a new bed; God’s divine plan is to give the patient health. Man goes to the circumference, and tries by civilizing to get inward and ultimately to Christianize; God’s plan is to begin at the centre, Christianize the heart, and then civilize the whole circumference of the social system.” Let the illustrious example of the sturdy Saxon inspire each one of us to nobler life. Let us be animated263 to deeds of heroism. Let each one determine that he will accomplish something for his kind, something for the human brotherhood. Let us not be so base as to daily use the measure of liberty which the Reformers worked to give us, without doing something ourselves to extend its dominion. Sneaking selfishness dictates a course of life which brings inglorious ease; but the Christian Hero wars for spiritual freedom, not for himself only, but for the whole brotherhood of Man. The faint-hearted may learn from the life of Luther to seek for a faith which shall make them strong. Luther, with God, was stronger than Popes, Priests and Kings without God. The Reformer did not shut himself up in seclusion to mope over the ills which appeared to be incurable, but contended for the truth, as he saw it, with manly vigor. His love of right was not a mere sentiment, but an inspiration brought out into life. Luther lives in History. Germany claims him, but he belongs not exclusively to her—he lived for the great family of Man. Carlyle says of Luther’s works in 24 quarto volumes, “They are not well written” (he speaks of their style), “but in no books have I found a more robust, genuine, I will say noble faculty of a man than in these. A rugged honesty, homeliness, simplicity, a rugged, sterling sense and strength. He flashes out illumination from him; his smiting idiomatic phrases seem to cleave into the very root of a matter.” Richter says, “his words were half battles.” Bossuet, the talented Roman Archbishop tells us “he had a lively and impetuous eloquence, which charmed and led away the people.” Melanchthon said, “No writer ever came nearer St. Paul than Luther has done.” Luther’s words were bright, cutting, keen—it requires a sharp lancet to open a foul ulcer. Luther moved with power—might of intellect—might of will—could less force have shaken the dry bones of Romanism? His course was brilliant; but ’twas not the glare of a meteor, flashing for awhile, then passing off into nothingness; but the course of a star, shining with brighter and brighter radiance, and still illuminating the world.